Comments on: The Environmental Roe v. Wade http://coffeespy.com/?p=199 I drink some coffee, read some comics, and use them both as rocket juice for political commentary... what could go wrong? Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:59:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: The Skald http://coffeespy.com/?p=199&cpage=1#comment-2816 The Skald Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:47:23 +0000 http://coffeespy.com/?p=199#comment-2816 I am not as pleased with the Supremes performance either, but they were within their purview based on the regulatory nature of the Clean Air Act, and the EPA's own mandate. Petitioner requests for rulemaking is a legislated element of the CAA and EPA. However, it is the EPA's Administrative body that can choose ot order a denial or acceptance of the request. I think Scalia was right in his dissent, the plaintiffs had no standing with the court. 5 of the boogers decided otherwise ;-( Cheers All I am not as pleased with the Supremes performance either, but they were within their purview based on the regulatory nature of the Clean Air Act, and the EPA’s own mandate. Petitioner requests for rulemaking is a legislated element of the CAA and EPA. However, it is the EPA’s Administrative body that can choose ot order a denial or acceptance of the request. I think Scalia was right in his dissent, the plaintiffs had no standing with the court. 5 of the boogers decided otherwise ;-(

Cheers All

]]> By: Dana http://coffeespy.com/?p=199&cpage=1#comment-2785 Dana Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:31:47 +0000 http://coffeespy.com/?p=199#comment-2785 Even if I agreed with the notion that we ought to strangle our economy and impoverish our people to save ourselves from global warming, the Supreme Court has hugely overstepped its bounds on this one. If the Congress believe that the Administration has not regulated something the Congress want regulated, then they need to pass legislation including greenhouse gasses. Instead we have action by our robed Philosopher-Kings, telling us what to do, since we aren't smart enough to know what's good for us. Plato would have been proud of our Supreme Court; I am less so. Even if I agreed with the notion that we ought to strangle our economy and impoverish our people to save ourselves from global warming, the Supreme Court has hugely overstepped its bounds on this one. If the Congress believe that the Administration has not regulated something the Congress want regulated, then they need to pass legislation including greenhouse gasses.

Instead we have action by our robed Philosopher-Kings, telling us what to do, since we aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for us.

Plato would have been proud of our Supreme Court; I am less so.

]]> By: Terri http://coffeespy.com/?p=199&cpage=1#comment-2768 Terri Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:24:09 +0000 http://coffeespy.com/?p=199#comment-2768 I'm with you on both counts. But it does crack me up that carbon dioxide is now to be regulated. I’m with you on both counts. But it does crack me up that carbon dioxide is now to be regulated.

]]> By: Coffeespy http://coffeespy.com/?p=199&cpage=1#comment-2749 Coffeespy Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:07:09 +0000 http://coffeespy.com/?p=199#comment-2749 Personally, I don't know what to believe about global warming. There's science for and science against. And there's solid science on both sides from reputable sources, not just crackpots. What I *do* know is that legal minds, which rely heavily on the study of logic, should know better than to impose a negative proof standard on an enforcement agency. Imagine if the law enforcement agencies used this same standard. Can you imagine the Supreme Court telling the FBI, "you MUST prosecute this man unless you can prove to us he is innocent?!" It's straight up insanity. Personally, I don’t know what to believe about global warming. There’s science for and science against. And there’s solid science on both sides from reputable sources, not just crackpots.

What I *do* know is that legal minds, which rely heavily on the study of logic, should know better than to impose a negative proof standard on an enforcement agency.

Imagine if the law enforcement agencies used this same standard. Can you imagine the Supreme Court telling the FBI, “you MUST prosecute this man unless you can prove to us he is innocent?!”

It’s straight up insanity.

]]> By: Terri http://coffeespy.com/?p=199&cpage=1#comment-2735 Terri Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:04:38 +0000 http://coffeespy.com/?p=199#comment-2735 Do you suppose this will lead to every other day "exhale" laws similar to the 'you get to drive days if you have an even numbered license plate'? Or perhaps the proof positive that there is an illegal amount of carbon dioxide on the Olympic Peninsula because of all the green growth there. Do you suppose this will lead to every other day “exhale” laws similar to the ‘you get to drive days if you have an even numbered license plate’?

Or perhaps the proof positive that there is an illegal amount of carbon dioxide on the Olympic Peninsula because of all the green growth there.

]]>